4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered - Bryan Kohberger Arrested - Moscow # 76

[wary]

<snipped>

The car data shows that the car was in the area. It doesn't show that BK was in the area.

Let’s see. If his car was taken while he slept peacefully at home, did he leave his phone in the car?

If so, did the car thief turn his phone off as the thief traveled toward Moscow, and then turn it on when traveling back toward Pullman?

What about the sheath? Did BK leave knife & sheath in the car, too?

Was it the car thief who made that trip back to Moscow in the morning?

Why should I think that any of this happened?

MOO, even though they’re questions, not opinions.

 

[Sister Golden Hair]

I was doing some other research and decided to go back to the discovery requests and responses. I found interesting things, a few of which I'll share here. it's all jmo imo with supporting links to share what I found interesting.

So here's the discovery list from Idaho criminal rules

I.C.R. 16. Discovery and Inspection | Supreme Court

isc.idaho.gov

16 (b) Disclosure of Evidence and Materials by the Prosecution on Written Request.

(1) Statement of Defendant.
(2) Statement of a Co-Defendant.
(3) Defendant's Prior Record.
(4) Documents and Tangible Objects.
(5) Reports of Examinations and Tests.

(6) State Witnesses. On written request of the defendant, the prosecuting attorney must furnish to the defendant a written list of the names and addresses of all persons having knowledge of relevant facts who may be called by the state as witnesses at the trial, together with any record of prior felony convictions of any of them, that is within the knowledge of the prosecuting attorney. The prosecuting attorney must also furnish, on written request, the statements made by the prosecution witnesses or prospective prosecution witnesses to the prosecuting attorney or the prosecuting attorney's agents or to any official involved in the investigation of the case unless a protective order is issued as provided in subsection (l) of this rule.
(7) Expert Witnesses.
(8) Police Reports. On written request of the defendant, the prosecuting attorney must furnish to the defendant reports and memoranda in possession of the prosecuting attorney that were made by a police officer or investigator in connection with the investigation or prosecution of the case.
(9) Digital Media Recordings (Audio and Video Files)


Here is the Discovery request from the Defense

Defense Discovery request 16b 1-9, plus more inc cite of Brady and Giglio
https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR29-22-2805/011023 Request for Discovery.pdf

Defense asks for this the regular stuff (see request)

I'm highlighting these:

6. State witnesses. Provide a written list of the names, addresses, phone numbers and/or other reasonable means of contact for all persons having knowledge of relevant facts who may be called by the prosecuting attorney as witnesses at trial, together with a NCIC report and a Spillman report of any such persons.
A. Provide the statements made by the prosecution witnesses, or prospective witnesses, made to the prosecuting attorney or their agents, or to any official involved in the investigatory process of the case. This includes statements to employees of the prosecutor’s office such as witness coordinators and all members of any law enforcement agency that has had any involvement in the matter.

AND this...

12. Inducement. Provide to the defendant all documents pertaining to the existence and substance of any payments, promises of leniency, preferential treatment or other inducements or threats made to prospective witnesses, within the scope of United States v. Giglio, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) and Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959) and their progeny

quick link to ID rules of professional conduct, https://isb.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/irpc.pdf
see 3.8 d & g specifically cited in the defense request


Here’s the State's response to request
https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR29-22-2805/012323%20States%20Response%20to%20Request%20for%20Discovery.pdf

1. Any relevant written or recorded statements made by the defendant

2. Any written or recorded statements of a co-defendant; and the substance of any relevant oral statement made by a co-defendant whether before or after arrest in response to interrogation by any person known by the co-defendant to be a peace officer or agent… See Exh A

(note imo jmo it could just say there is not one, but I can't know, and in light of #10 below, it did pique my interest - make of this what you will)

3. Defendant's prior criminal record
4. Any books, papers, documents, photographs, tangible objects
5. Any results or reports of physical or mental examinations
6. A written list of the names and addresses of all persons having knowledge of relevant facts who may be called by the state as witnesses
7. Any written summary or report of any testimony that the state intends
8. Any reports and memoranda in possession of the prosecuting attorney which were made with the investigation of this case
9. Exculpatory evidence…

And then this...
- and this is interesting because the original request for discovery doesn’t asks for info re an informant. Make of this what you will... it's just imo jmo and straight from the response

10. To the extent that information exists regarding an informant who is not going to be produced as a witness, including recordings or written statements of an informant or that identify an informant, such information is not subject to disclosure and the State asserts informant privilege under I.C.R. 16(g)(2), and prays for appropriate protective orders pursuant to I.C.R. 16(1) as necessary.

11. The State objects to requests by the Defendant for anything not otherwise addressed above on the grounds that such requests are outside the scope of I.C.R. 16 and/or are not subject to disclosure under ICR 16(g) (work product and informants).


italics and bolded mine
------------------------------------------------------------
for reference, here are some other discovery requests from other cases of interest. the requests do vary and county rules will vary but the referenced ICR is the same)

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR01-21-34839/Request%20for%20Discovery.pdf

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR22211624/Request%20of%20Discovery.pdf

and 16g 2 (same link to court rule above imo jmo just sharing - make of it what you will because IDK)

(g) Prosecution Information Not Subject to Disclosure.
(2) Informants. Disclosure must not be required of an informant's identity unless the informant is to be produced as a witness at a hearing or trial, subject to any protective order under subsection (l) of this rule or a disclosure order under subsection (b)(6) of this rule.

edited for subject/verb agmt

 

[10ofRods]

<snipped>

The car data shows that the car was in the area. It doesn't show that BK was in the area.

True, so I am very much looking forward to June, when BK gets the chance to explain how his car was (repeatedly?) used or stolen by someone else and he didn't notice. Or trusted that person. His attorney will have to introduce evidence that this person exists, as of course, I doubt BK will take the stand. But BK could take the stand and try to convince the judge that he was not driving the white Elantra on that night, and that, in addition, his phone was taken from him that night and he didn't notice it until...whenever he noticed it.

Since BK was still in possession of the same phone in PA, IIRC, his attorney needs to show evidence that someone (an unknown stranger?) took both the car and the phone on two different occasions within a 20 hour period or so. Since BK shows up on the video in Albertson's in Clarkton (with his car and phone on the same premises), he must know who was driving the car? Or, he by happenstance made the exact same circuit as the real killer?

How would BK know where to drive if the real killer hadn't told him? Did he have a tracking device on his car? If so, why did he not respond to the many, many appeals of LE in Pullman and in Moscow for whoever might have been driving a white Elantra that night to please come forward. If BK truly was just the innocent victim of a bad actor (and was merely riding along on Sunday), one would think he would have had his lawyer find a way to explain that to the court. Thing is, I don't think he can explain it to his attorney so that hasn't happened.

Both phone and car traveled together and pictures of BK exist along the route from the second trip. Personally, I think when all the neighborhood video is revealed, there will be more, but the PCA did its job: there's no easy explanation for the disappearance of both phone and car from BK's possession that night. And if there *is* evidence of him contacting the victims before that night, that's even worse for him.

IMO.

 

[Sister Golden Hair]

Since LE planned to break down doors and break multiple windows in Bryan's parents' home in the middle of the night when arresting BK, it was probably a good idea to have an arrest warrant in hand. Not a time for an avoidable warrantless arrest IMO.

imo jmo It would not have qualified as "exigent circumstances" so warrantless arrest would probably have lost them everything imo jmo. The remedy to unreasonable search and seizure is the exclusionary rule, which prevents the evidence obtained via the unreasonable search or seizure from being introduced in court. unreasonable search and seizure

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Holds that Probable Cause and Exigent Circumstances are Required for the Warrantless Search of a Vehicle

The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions from unreasonable searches and seizures, and no warrant to search any place or to seize any person or things shall issue …

blog.princelaw.com

Exigent Circumstances generally means some type of emergency, or exigency, necessitating an immediate action. Common examples include: imminent danger to persons, imminent destruction of evidence, or escape of suspects.

Now if BK had a van with lawyers, guns, and money and was loaded with weapons, packed up and ready to go, then probably imo jmo but otherwise, no imo jmo.

 

[jepop]

Some general thoughts:

IMO, the standard of BARD will be striven for at trial by the prosecution (if this case goes to trial). But the standard of BARD was not required for the arrest of the suspect.

Whilst I assume that the prosecution will present evidence at trial that strives towards meeting the standard of BARD, I don't assume that this necessarily has to be direct evidence. I think that circumstancial evidence can potentially be as strong as direct evidence.

A suspect's dna at a crime scene is, strictly speaking, circumstantial evidence IMO. Maybe it could be characterised as strong circumstantial evidence depending on other circumstances that may be presnted as part of the case (for e.g dna on the button snap of sheath where suspect cannot be shown to have inadvertently touched the sheath in 'innocent' circumstances). But even if there was no suspect dna recovered from the crime scene, IMO, a strong circumstantial case could still be presented at trial that potentially meets BARD standards. Ditto in the event of non-recovery of the weopen,or non-recovery of a documented purchase history for a/the likely weopen. MOO

IMO a strong circumstantial set of evidence can reach the standard of BARD without having to prove beyond all doubt that the suspect was inside the house. It is reasonable doubt, not all doubt, and that beyond reasonable doubt may be potentially reached by looking at the specific set of factual circumstances shown from evidence.

It is true that I am assuming that the prosecution will be seeking to present strong circumstantial evidence at trial and am assuming that they are currently putting together their case. It is also an assumption on my part that the case to be presented at trial will go beyond what was presented for arrest in terms of details, technical expertise,expert witnesses, investigative eliminations of other angles and more. I do assume that the prosecution will strive for BARD if this reaches trial and I assume that the evidence will be far more detailed and expertly presented than what we can know right now. One thing I don't assume is that this case will be a so called "slam dunk", though I really have not seen that term in high circulation here on this thread.MOO. IMO, it will require a lot of expert phone data and video data analyses. It will require a thorough revelation of LE technique, and a thorough demonstration of non tunnel vision. MOO

By the same token, IMO, it is also true that there is an assumption made whenever one looks at what we know from the PCA, (which is the circumstantial evidence that met the required standard for arrest),or looks at the incomplete details of a redacted warrant, and analyses that evidence in terms of whether it meets, right now, the future standard of BARD that will be required at trial. IMO, the assumption made here is a sort of 'what if" scenario. What if the prosecution used only what we have from the PCA to try and reach the standard of BARD that was not required for the PCA?

When I make my general assumptions about the quantity and quality of evidence that will be presented by the prosecution at trial (if this gets to trial) I have to accept that not all can be known at this time. But in the meantime I can look at and discuss with others what we know and what is new when it is released. We all have to make some assumptions to discuss anything. WE all speculate to a greater or lesser extent based of what we know now and what we don't know now, maybe that's my main point, IDK. All MOO.

 

[NoSpoonFeeding]

Since LE planned to break down doors and break multiple windows in Bryan's parents' home in the middle of the night when arresting BK, it was probably a good idea to have an arrest warrant in hand. Not a time for an avoidable warrantless arrest IMO.

The search and arrest only took place because the warrants were issued. How and when entry would be made was determined after the warrants were issued and a warrant (judge) authorized the night entry.
I think the plan was to enter as quickly as possible with the least threat to officer safety as possible but I can certainly see how all the property damage might look unnecessary. MOO

 

[Sister Golden Hair]

Except those aren't distinctive features at all. DM says 5'10 or taller. How many men on U of I's campus does that describe?

rsbm

AND BK is 6', so then logically we'd need to use a range from 5'10 to 6'2" imo jmo

 

[10ofRods]

Aside from DM's testimony and video of BK in Clarkston, there is no direct evidence that I know of, in this case.

There usually isn't.

Very few murders are caught on camera and many murderers take care to make sure there are no eyewitnesses. Eyewitness testimony is often very unreliable in any case. So most murder cases are largely (or entirely) circumstantial.

If there is an eyewitness that we don't yet know about (perhaps someone or a camera seeing BK get out of his car or back into his car), that could add a little more direct evidence, but I don't think we're going to get eyewitness or camera footage of the actual murders, ever.

JMO

 

[NCWatcher]

The search and arrest only took place because the warrants were issued. How and when entry would be made was determined after the warrants were issued and a warrant (judge) authorized the night entry.
I think the plan was to enter as quickly as possible with the least threat to officer safety as possible but I can certainly see how all the property damage might look unnecessary. MOO

I'm sure that's true. But the need for an arrest warrant vs a warrantless arrest has been discussed here quite a bit. Given they had the time to plan that sort of approach to the home suggests a warrantless arrest wouldn't work anyway. And as @Sister Golden Hair pointed out, there was nothing to suggest exigent circumstances-- no escape van full of money and weapons...

JMO

 

[10ofRods]

Right, lots of we don't knows.



Except those aren't distinctive features at all. DM says 5'10 or taller. How many men on U of I's campus does that describe? DM says bushy eyebrows. How many men on U of I's campus does that describe? Probably very many. These features are vague and pretty common, IMO. I think DM's part in this is very weak, actually (which is probably good since I'm sure she's been traumatized and she deserves a break).

MOO.

Well, yes, they are distinctive - and you're asking "how much does that limit the pool of possible suspects." That's not exactly why DM's account is valuable (but we've argued that so many times before, that's not my point here).

About 10-15% of the local population would males in BK's age group. There are about 150,000 people local to Moscow/Pullman (IIRC, could be a few more).

Of that group of young men, about 80% of them would have dark eyebrows. BK's eyebrows were described by a young woman as "bushy," but in fact, what she was apparently noticing are his large eyebrow ridges (the torus). I assume LE gave her one of those flip books to look through - and all she could match was eyes/brows as the rest of his head and face were covered.

Of the young men with dark eyebrows, only about 10% would have that larger torus (and the deep set eyes).

So in the end, it does narrow things down. Which is the point, when LE is trying to geofence and match existing phone and video data to particular individuals.

Since you asked about men on the U of I campus, in 2022, there were 5671 men attending U of I in grad and undergrad schools. Not all of them were residential or full time students, but for the sake of the stats, let's just say there were 5000 residential men. Of course, LE had no way of narrowing this down to just students. But fewer than 500 would meet all those criteria, IMO.

Meanwhile, there are way more students over at WSU. 25,000 (of which 5000 are not ethnically European/white). So about 9500 young men over there - so maybe 1000 or fewer would meet the criteria of height, brows, sex. They also have shoe size, which the public does not know.

I think it's better to be able to narrow a suspect list down to 1500 or so (just as Mr. Goncalves said - he thought LE should have at least told people they were looking for a male). Adding in shoe size, it's a slightly smaller group. Of those how many had White Elantras?

Probably only about 100 young men. IMO.

 

[Cool Cats]

While I agree that many men on campus could be 5'10" with bushy eyebrows, what they don't have is their DNA on a knife sheath left next to one of the victims, nor many other things in the affidavit (Car, phone info, etc.). So, had she said something like "He was pretty short and barely came up to my shoulder (and had some facial feature BK doesn't have, like a face tatt or large scar for instance), then it could be something the defense could fight and likely win that argument. But he DOES have bushy eyebrows, and he IS ~5'10"... so while that doesn't scream BK, added together with other "BK" things it's rather damning IMO.

Yup!

I would bet dollars to doughnuts that DM saw more and gave an even fuller description. I have never heard of a PCA that lists everything.

Just this minimal description alone does what it is meant to do --

It makes it impossible to EXCLUDE BK.

This is the whole point - not to say there is a positive ID, but that this description doesn't exclude him.

Many many descriptions would exclude him. And I mean the prosecution wouldn't be able to use it as part of their evidence and the defense could milk it for all it's worth by saying:

"A different person was there that night." "Who this witness saw rules BK out."

BK could be ruled out if the stranger was described as female, very short, very tall, overweight, a race not Caucasian, thin eyebrows, etc ...

We know already that many people have bushy eyebrows, so what? Not the point the prosecution is making in my opinion.

2 Cents

 

[NoSpoonFeeding]

I'm sure that's true. But the need for an arrest warrant vs a warrantless arrest has been discussed here quite a bit. Given they had the time to plan that sort of approach to the home suggests a warrantless arrest wouldn't work anyway. And as @Sister Golden Hair pointed out, there was nothing to suggest exigent circumstances-- no escape van full of money and weapons...

JMO

Since LE planned to break down doors and break multiple windows in Bryan's parents' home in the middle of the night when arresting BK, it was probably a good idea to have an arrest warrant in hand. Not a time for an avoidable warrantless arrest IMO.

LE planned to serve a warrant. I didn't think the post was a fair description of how and why the event occurred. MOO

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

While I agree that many men on campus could be 5'10" with bushy eyebrows, what they don't have is their DNA on a knife sheath left next to one of the victims, nor many other things in the affidavit (Car, phone info, etc.). So, had she said something like "He was pretty short and barely came up to my shoulder" (and had some facial feature BK doesn't have, like a face tatt or large scar for instance), then it could be something the defense could fight and likely win that argument. But he DOES have bushy eyebrows, and he IS ~5'10"... so while that doesn't scream BK, added together with other "BK" things it's rather damning IMO.

Can you please source where you're seeing that he's 5'10?

But again, you're (generic you're, not you personally) taking ALL evidence into account and when a hole is found in one, you (generic you) back it up with everything else. That is exactly the wrong approach, IMO. I think the DNA is the strongest evidence in this case and even that isn't a slam dunk, IMO.

 

[Sister Golden Hair]

Can you please source where you're seeing that he's 5'10?

But again, you're (generic you're, not you personally) taking ALL evidence into account and when a hole is found in one, you (generic you) back it up with everything else. That is exactly the wrong approach, IMO. I think the DNA is the strongest evidence in this case and even that isn't a slam dunk, IMO.

DNA analysis of trash from parents’ Pa. home helped identify suspect in Idaho killings, documents say

Idaho authorities unsealed the probable cause affidavit for Bryan Kohberger’s arrest on Thursday.

www.inquirer.com

Police say that Kohberger, at 6 feet tall and 185 pounds, matches that description...

 

[10ofRods]

The search and arrest only took place because the warrants were issued. How and when entry would be made was determined after the warrants were issued and a warrant (judge) authorized the night entry.
I think the plan was to enter as quickly as possible with the least threat to officer safety as possible but I can certainly see how all the property damage might look unnecessary. MOO

One part of the story that has troubled me from the beginning is that, having worked with FBI a few times, I know how big they are on crime stats and, well, profiling.

This was a very unusual case. The national database of mass murders shows that of crimes where 3 or more people are killed in their own home are very unusual. When it does occur, about 90% of these crimes are domestic violence or extended family suicide.

At any rate, in mass murder scenarios in general, there's a higher rate of suicide, including suicide by cop, than with serial killers. There's also a higher rate of extensive suicide (in which the mass murderer kills their own family after holing up at home).

I believe that explains the late night, no knock warrant. I think whoever was in charge, overall, had to weigh property damage against the real chance of loss of human life. I'm very glad BK went peaceably.

IMO.

 

[CSIDreamer]

Well, yes, they are distinctive - and you're asking "how much does that limit the pool of possible suspects." That's not exactly why DM's account is valuable (but we've argued that so many times before, that's not my point here).

About 10-15% of the local population would males in BK's age group. There are about 150,000 people local to Moscow/Pullman (IIRC, could be a few more).

Of that group of young men, about 80% of them would have dark eyebrows. BK's eyebrows were described by a young woman as "bushy," but in fact, what she was apparently noticing are his large eyebrow ridges (the torus). I assume LE gave her one of those flip books to look through - and all she could match was eyes/brows as the rest of his head and face were covered.

Of the young men with dark eyebrows, only about 10% would have that larger torus (and the deep set eyes).

So in the end, it does narrow things down. Which is the point, when LE is trying to geofence and match existing phone and video data to particular individuals.

Since you asked about men on the U of I campus, in 2022, there were 5671 men attending U of I in grad and undergrad schools. Not all of them were residential or full time students, but for the sake of the stats, let's just say there were 5000 residential men. Of course, LE had no way of narrowing this down to just students. But fewer than 500 would meet all those criteria, IMO.

Meanwhile, there are way more students over at WSU. 25,000 (of which 5000 are not ethnically European/white). So about 9500 young men over there - so maybe 1000 or fewer would meet the criteria of height, brows, sex. They also have shoe size, which the public does not know.

I think it's better to be able to narrow a suspect list down to 1500 or so (just as Mr. Goncalves said - he thought LE should have at least told people they were looking for a male). Adding in shoe size, it's a slightly smaller group. Of those how many had White Elantras?

Probably only about 100 young men. IMO.

Didn't she also use the qualifier "not very muscular, athletic build"? More narrowing. JMO

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Well, yes, they are distinctive - and you're asking "how much does that limit the pool of possible suspects." That's not exactly why DM's account is valuable (but we've argued that so many times before, that's not my point here).

If a large percentage of the population has these features, then by definition, it's not distinctive, IMO.

About 10-15% of the local population would males in BK's age group. There are about 150,000 people local to Moscow/Pullman (IIRC, could be a few more).

Where are you getting the percentage relating to Moscow/Pullman population. Also, age was never mentioned by DM, so you can't go by BK's age group. You have to go by his height and bushy brows. The height that DM gave was 5'10 or taller, which I believe is likely the average height among the male population in that area, based on the university being there. No idea how we'd find the number of males with bushy brows, but in my personal experience, I believe that's likely not distinctive either. JMO.

Of that group of young men, about 80% of them would have dark eyebrows. BK's eyebrows were described by a young woman as "bushy," but in fact, what she was apparently noticing are his large eyebrow ridges (the torus). I assume LE gave her one of those flip books to look through - and all she could match was eyes/brows as the rest of his head and face were covered.

Where are you getting the percentages?

Of the young men with dark eyebrows, only about 10% would have that larger torus (and the deep set eyes).

So in the end, it does narrow things down. Which is the point, when LE is trying to geofence and match existing phone and video data to particular individuals.

Since you asked about men on the U of I campus, in 2022, there were 5671 men attending U of I in grad and undergrad schools. Not all of them were residential or full time students, but for the sake of the stats, let's just say there were 5000 residential men. Of course, LE had no way of narrowing this down to just students. But fewer than 500 would meet all those criteria, IMO.

Meanwhile, there are way more students over at WSU. 25,000 (of which 5000 are not ethnically European/white). So about 9500 young men over there - so maybe 1000 or fewer would meet the criteria of height, brows, sex.

And the general population as well. Not all the men in that area are students.

They also have shoe size, which the public does not know.

They have BK's shoe size, but how do you know they have the killer's shoe size? Or is that an assumption based on the PCA which only mentioned one latent print?

 

[NoSpoonFeeding]

One part of the story that has troubled me from the beginning is that, having worked with FBI a few times, I know how big they are on crime stats and, well, profiling.

This was a very unusual case. The national database of mass murders shows that of crimes where 3 or more people are killed in their own home are very unusual. When it does occur, about 90% of these crimes are domestic violence or extended family suicide.

At any rate, in mass murder scenarios in general, there's a higher rate of suicide, including suicide by cop, than with serial killers. There's also a higher rate of extensive suicide (in which the mass murderer kills their own family after holing up at home).

I believe that explains the late night, no knock warrant. I think whoever was in charge, overall, had to weigh property damage against the real chance of loss of human life. I'm very glad BK went peaceably.

IMO.

Yes and I'll add suicide by cop often includes shooting at the officers first, not just displaying or threatening with a weapon.

 

[Cool Cats]

Yes and I'll add suicide by cop often includes shooting at the officers first, not just displaying or threatening with a weapon.

Man killed during SWAT standoff near WSU identified

PULLMAN, Wash. - The Whitman County Coroner's Office have identified the man that was killed during the SWAT standoff near WSU last week.

www.khq.com

According to the Pullman Police Department (PPD), the suspect police shot to end a SWAT standoff near WSU Thursday morning is dead.

PPD said the suspect started firing outside the apartment window, which prompted police to fire back.

 

[10ofRods]

Didn't she also use the qualifier "not very muscular, athletic build"? More narrowing. JMO

Yes!

And if we work backward from the witness description (which is one of the most immediate and primary things any investigation will do), we get something like 100-200 young men max (counting locals and not just students) who meet the known criteria of

height, lighter skin, lean build, prominent brows, eyebrow color, shoe size. Let's even say there are 300-400 such young men in the general region. How many of those young men have a phone whose number shows up within the geo-fenced area? How many of them have a white Elantra?

Let's say 20-30 (and I think that's being generous). Then comes the good old gumshoe work. Start looking into all of them. One has applied twice for a LE internship in Pullman. He has a phone that's been inside the geo-fenced area. He meets all the other criteria from DM.

So, obviously, LE talks to the LE in Pullman, who probably says the guy was a bit off but also a criminology student. That's a tiny red flag. But now they have at least one person (Kohberger) who is ringing little bells (they probably had other young men doing same)

They send the sheath DNA results to at least one genetic genealogy company OR they simply get trash from Kohberger's parents' trash (his home address is on file with WSU, who is cooperating, obviously). And the DNA on the sheath is a match for Bryan Kohberger's dad (a paternity match, so about 49.5% of Kohberger's DNA matched the expected contribution from the elder Mr. Kohberger).

That's a full BINGO card right there. Meets all known criteria. Has the right kind of car. Has the phone that traveled from WSU to Moscow that night, then proceeded onward through a new route to Pullman, then comes back again before the murders are ever on the scanner. Even more incriminating. Yep, way plenty for any judge I know.

If after getting BK's dna directly from him, it had turned out not to be a complete match for the sheath DNA, and instead it appeared that BK's dad must have had some other kid in the Washington area committing murders, that would have been very strange. But instead, as expected, BK's DNA matched the sheath exactly.

Only one person's DNA on the sheath and it was the DNA of Kohberger. BK says he can exonerate himself (through his PA attorney) but waives his right to a speedy trial. Meanwhile, the digital evidence seems to say that BK was messaging MM, at least, 3 weeks before the murders and using his own name and his own Insta account. He was apparently following all 3 of the women victims.

Bryan Kohberger Followed All 3 Female Idaho Victims on Instagram: Source

Bryan Kohberger is accused of murdering Madison Mogen, Kaylee Goncalves, Xana Kernodle and Ethan Chapin

people.com

At the time these accounts were being circulated (mostly by News Nation/Banfield), sources said that this same BK-named account posted BEFORE anyone could have known about the murders, because they hadn't taken place. He repeatedly messaged one young woman.

This last detail is fairly minor, although I think we will hear more about both Maddie and Kaylee having security concerns. How a jury will look at this is anyone's guess.

Kohberger 'liked' all of Madison Mogen's Instagram | Banfield

Sources close to the Idaho killings investigation told NewsNation's "Banfield" that the person who is featured on Bryan Kohberger's phone is the same person that he was reaching out to on social media. The photos were downloaded off of the victim's Instagram. Kohberger also apparently followed...

www.newsnationnow.com